I wouldn't presume upon the views of American women. You've no grounds to imagine that the comments of a few nutjobs had much impact on the course of the election or that quite a few nutjob women didn't agree with the comments.

And as for "going out of their way to upset them", the last Republican candidate, McCain, went out of his way to emphasize his own Latino connections which go pretty deep. He even spoke Spanish on a occasion. This particular candidate had no such roots to trade on.

There aren't any particular issues involved here so comparisons with the Tories / Labour are way off. The Republicans have lost two elections on the trot but since they won the two previous ones I doubt that they will be panicking too much.

In terms of the popular vote the Republicans have lost 5 out of the last 6 elections. As one Republican said "we seem to be running out of angry white men"

They don't need to win the popular vote, they need to win the Presidential vote. And they only lost the popular vote by about 2% or so, if Romney had been a born-again Christian rather than a Mormon, he'd probably be sitting in the White House. They did win the elections to the house of representatives by 234 to 194.

They don't need to win the popular vote, they need to win the Presidential vote. And they only lost the popular vote by about 2% or so, if Romney had been a born-again Christian rather than a Mormon, he'd probably be sitting in the White House. They did win the elections to the house of representatives by 234 to 194.

What is wrong with you? The Republicans lost this election. If everyone had their own they lost the 2000 election too. It was only the Republican bias in the Supreme Court that gave that election to Bush. So effectively they lost in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 & 2012.

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014

What is wrong with you? The Republicans lost this election. If everyone had their own they lost the 2000 election too. It was only the Republican bias in the Supreme Court that gave that election to Bush. So effectively they lost in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 & 2012.

Gore did win the popular vote but he did not win the Electoral College. I believe that there was some checking done of the uncounted votes in Florida but they wouldn't have altered the outcome: Bush did actually win that state.

The Republicans do seem to be a divided party at the moment. At one end, there are moderates suggesting that they need to modify their ideas to appeal to a wider demographic of American voters, and put in place policies that are a little less divisive (i.e stop pandering to the Tea Party types, pro-lifers and ultra conservatives). On the other hand, the hardline right of the party seems to think that they lost not because they've lost sight of the bigger picture, but because Romney wasn't hardline enough - i.e that they should listen to the nutjobs on Fox News etc and go even further to the right.

Although the Tories over here didn't win an outright majority last time, their cause was definitely helped by projecting a more "touchy feely"/centrist approach. Whether or not the party has genuinely changed is another argument, but they wisely knew that to get the keys to number 10 they'd have to look less loony and less like disciples of hardline Thatcherism. Perhaps the Republicans could learn a thing or two from our PM and his spin doctors. Or, in fact, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, who were masters at prattling on about there being a "third way", which seems to be conservatism with a few more social policies (note: not socialism, just policies that appear on the outside to be of benefit to the wider populus, rather than the top third or whatever)

Although the Tories over here didn't win an outright majority last time, their cause was definitely helped by projecting a more "touchy feely"/centrist approach. Whether or not the party has genuinely changed is another argument, but they wisely knew that to get the keys to number 10 they'd have to look less loony and less like disciples of hardline Thatcherism. Perhaps the Republicans could learn a thing or two from our PM and his spin doctors.

I always get the feeling that Cameron is happy to sit towards the centre and does understand what the party has to do to get elected repeatedly. However, much like the republicans there is a significant section of the party who doesn't see this is the only way they will ever get in power. The right end of the tories kept quiet for the election but seem now to think they can go back to their old ways. Cameron doesn't have enough power within his own party to ignore them and Labour are happy to exploit this weakness. He has a similar problem to Romney in that he knows what he has to do/say to get elected but hasn't got enough control over his party to do it.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

The Republicans do seem to be a divided party at the moment. At one end, there are moderates suggesting that they need to modify their ideas to appeal to a wider demographic of American voters, and put in place policies that are a little less divisive (i.e stop pandering to the Tea Party types, pro-lifers and ultra conservatives). On the other hand, the hardline right of the party seems to think that they lost not because they've lost sight of the bigger picture, but because Romney wasn't hardline enough - i.e that they should listen to the nutjobs on Fox News etc and go even further to the right.

Although the Tories over here didn't win an outright majority last time, their cause was definitely helped by projecting a more "touchy feely"/centrist approach. Whether or not the party has genuinely changed is another argument, but they wisely knew that to get the keys to number 10 they'd have to look less loony and less like disciples of hardline Thatcherism. Perhaps the Republicans could learn a thing or two from our PM and his spin doctors. Or, in fact, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, who were masters at prattling on about there being a "third way", which seems to be conservatism with a few more social policies (note: not socialism, just policies that appear on the outside to be of benefit to the wider populus, rather than the top third or whatever)

This is it in a nutshell. The Republican party policy doesn't need to change for them to win elections, just the front man.

The Tories tried to be more cuddly and friendly but failed since their front men were Hague, IDS and Howerd. None of whom are particularly telegenic.

They then got Cameron and won.

Similar stories with the LibDems with Nick Clegg being more charismatic than "Ming" and Blair being more likeable (on the surface anyway) than Kinnock or Brown.

Trojan was correct. In 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2012 the Republicans lost the popular vote. They won in the unique circumstances of 2004 (but that was very tight college-wise) but even then it looks like Kerry polled more then than Romney did in 2012.

The Democrats gained in the Senate and 'social liberal' policies appear to have won on the ballot more than they lost. Republicans who were 'too Republican' struggled.

I think if the Republicans adopt that attitude, the Democrats will be delighted.

But Cameron didn't win. It's why he heads a Coalition. And the Lib Dems also suffered a net loss of seats in 2010 under Nick Clegg.

Don't kid yourself or anyone else that actual policies don't count.

Cameron finished ahead of Labour, in British terms that's "winning". He was the first Tory to do so since 1992. I'm not sure what your definition of failure would be.

Clegg lost seats compared to the 2005 General Election when the Liberals were led by the photogenic and popular Charles Kennedy. He took them up from where they were under Ming.

Policies are important but presentation is equally important. I don't know that Brown's policies were much different from Blair's but I doubt that Brown would have won three terms as PM (or indeed more than one).

The Republicans no doubt need to reflect but it's hardly the equivalent of 1979 when British politics took a dramatic shift to the right and has never returned. It's much more like 1997 when British politicians discovered the need to look like film stars. Romney looked the part but unfortunately for him, his religious views are unpopular.

Trojan was correct. In 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2012 the Republicans lost the popular vote. They won in the unique circumstances of 2004 (but that was very tight college-wise) but even then it looks like Kerry polled more then than Romney did in 2012.

The Democrats gained in the Senate and 'social liberal' policies appear to have won on the ballot more than they lost. Republicans who were 'too Republican' struggled.

Each state gets two senators regardless of its population. They don't necessarily indicate what the general public thinks. The house of representatives (which the Republicans control) is more representative (no surprise). That nutjob candidates tended to do badly isn't a particular surprise.

I remember that when Bush won his second term, there were similar comments about how the Dems had lost middle America but being too liberal and would need a huge culture shift if they were ever to win power again. Instead they got a better, more media friendly candidate and won without lurching to the right (if anything they've gone leftwards).

The Democrats won the national popular vote in all three contests - President, Senate, House of Representatives.

The latter was a mere .3% lead. That shows the relative strength of the two parties at grassroots level. Neck-and-neck. It's far too early to announce that the Dems have dominance over the Republicans in US politics.

Policies are important but presentation is equally important. I don't know that Brown's policies were much different from Blair's but I doubt that Brown would have won three terms as PM (or indeed more than one).

Brown didn't even win one, never mind 'more than one'! Brown was a disaster for the Labour Party, which I didn't mind at all! Except of course that we had to endure two years of him. Man that was bad. Really bad.

The Democrats won the national popular vote in all three contests - President, Senate, House of Representatives.

Yes they did, yet they ended with 38 fewer seats than the Republicans in the House! How? Well, in a process that would make even top Tory strategist Gerry Mander blush, Congressional Redistricting allows partisan redrawing of electoral boundaries after a census. It would seem that the Republicans made the most of the fact that they controlled the process in a lot more places than the Democrats.

"There are now more Trident submarines based in Scotland than there are MPs to vote for them."